ANIVA DUTTA POSTAL ASSISTANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue is identical is all the four O.As. concerning the legitimacy of the impugned order dated 10.9.2002 transferring the four applicants from Agartala Postal Division. THE text of the order is reproduced below:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondents opposing the claim of the applicants referred to the facts mentioned in the written statement as well as to the Misc. Petition No. 133/2002 praying for vacation of the interim order. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order of transfer was passed due to administrative exigency so that the administration could run smoothly and subserve the public interest. Mr. A. Deb Roy, learned Sr. C.G.S.C., stated that the transfer of a Government servant is an incidence of the service and that a Government servant does not possess a right not to be removed from a place of posting. The Tribunal inexercising power under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not to act as an Appellate Authority. Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned Addl. C.G.S.C., referring to the fact situation, submitted that the impugned order was passed on administrative grounds and since the said order was not violative of the statutory rules or consitutional provisions, the Tribunal would refrain from interfering with the administrative decision passed by the authority bonafide. Mr. B.C. Pathak also sought to distinguish the cases referred to by the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants.

(3.) MR. U.B. Saha, the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants particularly emphasised the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 6 by her communication dated 6.8.2002 addressed to the Chief Secretary and also to the note submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the Director of Postal Services dated 5.9.2002. It would be appropriate in this context to refer to the communication dated 6.8.2002 submitted by the respondent No. 6 to the Chief Secretary, which reads as follows: